Optimal academic experience: Exploring the relationship between motivation and flow.
Zara Vorwerk
Department of Psychology
University of Cape Town
Supervisor: Johann Louw
Word Count:
Main Body: [7 600]
1
ABSTRACT
This study explores the factors that elicit and sustain the optimal academic experience. Flow
operationalizes this experience and is studied in relation to motivation. More self-determined
types of motivation are expected to have higher correlations with the flow experience, with
autonomy acting as a moderator. Results are theoretically underpinned by self-determination
theory and cognitive evaluation theory. Congruent with engagement research this study has
implications for successful educational outcomes such as learning, achievement, continued
motivation, commitment, performance, increased skills and maximal chances for school
completion. Flow has often been studied in special populations such as dancers, athletes and
scientists. This study investigates how flow is experienced and supported in the higher
education environment.
“How optimism and hope affect life, what constitutes wisdom, and how talent and creativity
come to fruition (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5),” are just a few of the questions
that Positive Psychology tries to answer. Studying these positive individual traits goes toward
building a strength-based model of flourishing. Human strengths are important for an
individual to thrive, but so are the ways in which they are supported. Positive Psychology
also extends to studying the optimal working environment, communities and education.
Besides individual traits, valued subjective experiences are also of interest (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Engagement and flow are subjective experiences which outline
academic strengths in the educational domain.
Engagement has been defined as a behavior in which a person brings in their personal
self during the performance of a task (Kahn, 1990). Student engagement has been linked to
important educational outcomes such as learning and achievement, successful school
completion, continued motivation, commitment and performance (Shernoff et al, 2003).
The flow experience is engaging in that it is described as total involvement in an
activity that one is completely absorbed in. Engagement and flow are also related in other
ways. Interestingly both Kahn (1990), and Csikszentmihalyi cite alienation as the opposite to
engagement and flow respectively. Flow and engagement have been used as examples of self-
directed behavior (Kahn, 1990), flow has also been used as an example of engagement
(Steele & Fullagar, 2009), and flow has even been studied as an operationalization of
engagement (Mills & Fullagar, 2008). Concentration, interest and enjoyment are measures of
engagement and these constructs experienced together are typical of the flow experience
(Shernoff et al. 2003). Engagement is affected by the challenge and skill of the activity which
2
correlates with the flow experience where high challenge is matched to the skills of the
individual. The relevance of an activity is also important for the experience of engagement to
occur. Clear goals are important for the flow experience and intuitively the relevance of an
activity would be a key determinant in goal setting. (Ryan & Deci, 2000, Csikszentmihalyi,
1999).
As research has shown, engagement has important educational outcomes and is akin to
the flow experience. Therefore flow is a useful lens through which to look at educational
research and contribute to engagement research.
Flow is the brainchild of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and he describes it as an optimal
experience where high challenge is matched to the skills of the individual. There is a clear
goal in mind and feedback is received from the activity itself (how well you are playing a
sport) or from an internal measure (I am ironing more than yesterday). People engaging in a
flow activity experience a distorted sense of time and a loss of self-consciousness because
they are so involved. The experience is intrinsically rewarding, “worth doing for its own
sake” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999, p. 46). It has even been experienced as entering a different
reality where performance is effortless (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Moneta, 2004; Nakamura &
Csikzentmihalyi, 2003; Sobel, Dava & Omni, 1995).
The most comprehensive description of flow outlines nine component states: challenge-
skill balance; action-awareness merging; clear goals; unambiguous feedback; total
concentration on the task at hand; sense of control; loss of self consciousness; transformation
of time; and the autotelic experience.
The challenge-skill balance refers to the perceived challenge (experienced as an
opportunity to perform an action or achieve a goal) balanced with perceived skills to meet the
desired outcome.
Action-awareness merging is experienced as total absorption, engagement and
involvement in the activity to the extent that one feels one with the activity. Performance is
described as effortless and spontaneous.
Clear goals, objectives and performance preparation and planning are necessary for the
flow experience to occur. Clarity of purpose and absolute focus ensue during the flow
experience.
Unambiguous feedback is clear and immediate. This feedback is processed continually
and seamlessly, guiding performance.
3
Total concentration on the task at hand is definitive of the flow state. There are no
extraneous thoughts or distractions. Clarity and satisfaction are experienced, leading to
mastery of skills.
A sense of control describes the feeling of empowerment during the flow state which
occurs when outside opinion is no longer considered, loss of self consciousness ensues.
Deep concentration leads to the experience of transformation of time. Hours may pass
without notice or time may slow or even stop in the realm of flow experience.
The autotelic experience is intrinsically rewarding and the enjoyment this optimal
experience affords is continually sought after (Jackson & Eklund, 2004).
Flow research has been done on scientists, artists and athletes, but Czikszentmihalyi
(1999), does not exclude seemingly trivial activities from having flow potential. The meaning
derived from this experience can deepen over time, which could be why Csikszentmihalyi
undertook creativity in later life studies. Besides creativity and later life studies, research on
the flow state has also studied the arts and literature. Most flow research has studied play in a
broad sense, which includes rock climbers, chess players, basketball players and social
dancers. There is not much research done on social interactions, in addition involvement in
religious practices has also been studied (Nakamura & Csikzentmihalyi, 2003). Flow research
has made large contributions to studies in the work domain, but there has been a
comparatively small contribution in the educational domain.
Flow is a source of motivation in that it is enjoyable and leads to higher levels of
achievement in the sports arena. Not surprisingly studies in other arenas have also looked at
the relationship between motivation and flow. Studies cite motivation as a precursor to flow.
Evidence also shows that highly motivated individuals experience more instances of flow.
As intrinsic motivation involves participating in an activity for its own sake it is not
surprising that a positive link between intrinsic motivation and flow has also been established
(Demerouti, 2006; Jackson, 1996; Kowal & Fortier, 1999; Mills & Fullagar, 2008; Ryan &
Deci, 2000).
Most reviewed studies use Self-determination theory (SDT) to operationalize
motivation because it outlines types of motivation within intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by
their degree of self determination. The theory of SDT also takes into account that people are
motivated to act for varying reasons (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The intrinsic types of motivation
are the most self-determined and are performed for the satisfaction gained from the activity,
extrinsic motivation (motivation due to outside pressure) lies at the lower end of the self-
4
determination scale. Amotivation is characterized by the absence of motivation (Ryan and
Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic Motivation
The most self-determined type of intrinsic motivation is knowledge, followed by
accomplishment and stimulation.
Intrinsic Motivation – Knowledge describes an activity that is undertaken because the
process of learning and exploration is enjoyable. This is the most self-determined type of
motivation.
Intrinsic Motivation – Accomplishment is less self-determined than the previous type of
motivation. An activity is motivated by the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment
garnered from participating in a task.
Intrinsic Motivation – Stimulation is the least self-determined type of intrinsic
motivation where an activity is undertaken to provide excitement, sensory pleasure and
enjoyment.
Extrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic motivation refers to participapation in an activity for some seperable outcome
(Ryan and Deci, 2000).
The extrinsic motivation types ranging from most self-determined to least self-
determined are: identified regulation; introjected regulation; and external regulation. Finally
amotivation will be discussed.
Extrinsic Motivation – Identified Regulation describes the most self-determined type of
extrinsic motivation. It is not unlike intrinsic motivation in that an activity has importance
and value for the self and this value is internalized.
Extrinsic Motivation – Introjected Regulation describes the actions of the individual
that are motivated externally. The goal is partially internalized, but behaviour is driven by
guilt and obligation.
Extrinsic Motivation – External Regulation is the least self-determined type of
motivation. Behaviour is driven by outside factors like gaining rewards and avoiding of
punishment.
Amotivation
Amotivation describes a state where motivation is not present. Amotivation assumes an
external locus of control. Taking the self-determination theory into account, this external
sense of autonomy would curtail flow experiences (Figure 1. presents these motivation types
graphically).
5
Figure 1: Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation and Amotivation on a self-determination
continuum.
Intrinsic Motivation
Knowledge Accomplishment
Stimulation
Extrinsic Motivation
Identified Introjected
< lo
w -
Self-
dete
rmin
atio
n - h
igh
>
External Regulation
No self- determination
Amotivation
The definition of motivation has changed over time. Four forms of motivation were originally
proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000). Vallerand (1992), further detailed these through use of a
hierarchy. Ryan and Deci (2000) detailed extrinsic motivation further. Evidence was found
by Ryan and Connell (1989) that these different types of motivation have an underlying
continuum. Ryan and Deci (2000) outlined one type of intrinsic motivation operationalized as
intrinsic regulation and the same extrinsic motivational types outlined above. Some studies
use autonomous motivation to describe intrinsic, integrated and identified regulation because
of their similarity in the degree to which they are self determined. Introjected regulation and
external regulation are both experienced as externally controlled behaviours, although
introjected regulation is partially internalized it is not experienced as emanating from the self.
For this reason some studies study these two types of extrinsic motivation together as
controlled motivation (Mills & Fullagar, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vallerand et al, 1992).
The study by Mills and Fullagar (2008), on the relation between flow and motivation in
architecture students uses the underlying motivational structure of SDT. Flow was
experienced more often by architecture students with more self-determined forms of intrinsic
motivation, but not for extrinsic motivation. Kowal and Fortier (1999), found that swimmers
who swam because they enjoyed the activity (self-determined motivation), reported the most
6
flow experiences, while swimmers who were not motivated in a self determined manner
(extrinsic motivation) reported few flow experiences. They also found that in line with SDT
perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness were positively correlated to flow. In
earlier research looking at managers, clerical workers and blue collar workers, motivation
was explained better by activity than flow, although motivation was found to be high in flow
activities (Csikszentmihalyi et al, 1983). In contrast intrinsic motivation has been found to be
unrelated to flow (Mannel, Zuzanek & Larson, 1988) and motivation has been found to be
unrelated to flow in sports (Stein, Kimiecik, Daniels & Jackson, 1995).
In the available research, few studies have examined the relation between flow and
motivation in the educational domain. The studies examining this relation in other domains
have not yielded consistent results. This points to a need to do such a study in the educational
domain. The study looking at the relation between motivation and flow in architecture
students is not generalizable to other faculties because the specific sample type. The
inconsistent relation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and flow may point to the
need to identify moderating factors (Mills & Fullagar, 2008).
Moderating factors that have been studied include perceived freedom, goal orientations,
perceptions of competence and confidence, and the need for achievement. Conscientiousness
has been found to moderate the relationship between flow and work performance. The need
for achievement, individual self-regard and engagement have also been linked to flow
experiences (Demerouti, 2006). SDT has been used to identify moderators in the relationship
between motivation and flow in a study of architectural student’s subjective experiences
(Mills & Fullagar, 2008).
SDT gives us the theoretical background to understand the underlying determinants of
motivation and therefore flow though such concepts as autonomy (Kowal & Fortier, 1999).
SDT looks at the social-contextual factors that bring out and support intrinsic motivation
which is seen as an evolved propensity (Ryan et al, 1997 as cited in Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Through research three innate psychological needs have been postulated to facilitate self-
motivation. Satisfaction of these needs leads to proactive and engaged behaviour. The needs
that support and enhance self motivation are competence, autonomy and relatedness. If these
needs are not met, individuals are passive, alienated and their sense of well-being suffers.
Flow research has found a positive relation between perceptions of confidence and
experience of the flow state. Athletes who had higher perceptions of competence experienced
flow more often. In line with SDT theory, a study on swimmers found that perceptions of
7
autonomy, competence and relatedness were positively correlated to flow (Kowal & Fortier,
1999).
Autonomy, especially has garnered research attention. This is in line with Cognitive
Evaluation Theory (CET), a sub-theory of SDT. CET postulates that a sense of autonomy
must precede feelings of competence in order to facilitate or enhance intrinsic motivation.
The third basic need outlined by SDT, that of relatedness may not be necessary for intrinsic
motivation to occur when an activity is performed individually, although a secure relational
base may be (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Since CET postulates that competence cannot be
experienced without autonomy and the need for relatedness may not be necessary in an
individually performed academic activity, it is not surprising that autonomy has garnered
much research attention.
In research on student engagement when an activity that is challenging, demands skill,
and is relevant to the individual it may foster perceptions of competence and autonomy, this
in turn increases intrinsic motivation. Autonomy has played a significant role in engagement
research. It was found to be a significant factor in student controlled versus teacher controlled
activities. Another study found that professor support had significant direct effects for
autonomy and role clarity on flow. This is consistent with previous studies in other contexts.
(Kahn, 1990; Nakamura & Csikzentmihalyi, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Shernoff et al, 2003).
Autonomy was found to moderate the relation between motivation and flow in
architecture students (Mills & Fullagar, 20008).
Studies on student engagement have been linked to positive educational outcomes. As
flow can be studied as an operalization of engagement and epitomizes optimal experience in
various domains including education it is suprising that very few educational studies have
used flow to study the academic experience. The flow experience has many implications for
successful educational outcome as it has been linked to increased skills and engagement,
continued motivation and performance, maximal chances for school completion, and a sense
of commitment and belonging. Concentration, interest, positive emotional response,
perception of competence, autonomy, esteem, intrinsic motivation and commitment have also
been linked to the flow experience (Kahn, 1990; Mills & Fullagar, 2008; Nakamura &
Csikzentmihalyi, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Shernoff et al., 2003).
More than 200 studies in the educational domain have been done using SDT as a basis
for research. SDT looks at motivation which is integral to achievement, as a multidimentional
contruct differing in terms of quality. Reasons for motivation have an impact on quality of
motivation and different types of motivation have distinct outcomes (Guay, Ratelle and
8
Chanal, 2008). After a review of the literature in the educational domain Guay, Ratelle and
Chanal (2008), concluded that motivation as outlined by the SDT theory is integral to
identifying how students excel in school.
A deeper understanding of the relation between student motivation and flow can be
used to encourage positive student outcome to excel, experience well-being and encourage
the most suitable type of motivation. The inconsistency of results on the relation between
flow and motivation, need clarification.
Few studies have looked at student motivation as postulated by the Self-Determination
Theory, and even fewer have looked at it with regards to the flow experience. The outcomes,
qualities and affect associated with the flow experience show potential for educational
intervention and application.
Self-determination is not only an important tool for understanding the relationship
between different types of motivation and flow, but also postulates the motivational
determinants that precede flow. It also looks at the consequences of adopting different levels
of motivation and the outcomes of such motivation such as the flow experience. Substantial
research has shown that intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation, the
most self-determined forms of motivation, lead to positive affect and health-promoting
behaviours. On the other hand non-self-determined extrinsic motivation and amotivation have
negative consequences such as drop out behaviour. More research is needed to examine this
relation in an educational setting. SDT is a comprehensive theory for the examination of this
relation in that it outlines types and levels of motivation (Kowal & Fortier, 1999).
Perceptions of competence and autonomy show increase in affect, enjoyment, esteem
and intrinsic motivation which is described as “the natural inclination toward assimilation,
mastery, spontaneous interest, and exploration” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.70)’. I also propose
that autonomy is most likely to be a moderating variable due to previous research, SDT and
CET.
Moderating factors such as autonomy have been shown to give us a deeper
understanding of this relation as well as being linked to qualities that are inherently
motivating (Mills & Fullagar, 2008).
Studies on flow and motivation have yielded unclear results as to which types of
motivation are more correlated with flow. Flow theory postulates that intrinsic motivation
should have higher correlations with flow, but some studies have also shown correlations for
9
some types of extrinsic motivation and only for extrinsic motivation. The study of
architectural students cannot be generalized to the educational domain in general because of
sample size and specificity of participants (Mills & Fullagar, 2008). The varying results
obtained may be due to the changing definition and I propose the definition of autonomous
and controlled motivation which encompasses the self-determined types of motivation. For
these reasons I propose:
H1: Flow will show higher correlations to autonomous motivation.
H2: Flow will not be correlated with controlled motivation.
Motivation is theorized to lie on a continuum to the degree that it is self-determined. This has
implications for the validity and reliability of the measure. The study involving architectural
students has demonstrated that each level of motivation incrementally adds variance to the
flow experience (Mills & Fullagar, 2008), but this needs to be established for a more varied
sample in order to make results generalizable to other academic contexts. Therefore I
propose:
H3: Motivation will incrementally explain flow according to its level of self-determination.
Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) is a subtheory of SDT, and outlines social and
environmental factors that support versus forestall intrinsic motivation. CET postulates that a
sense of autonomy must precede feelings of competence in order to facilitate or enhance
intrinsic motivation. It is perhaps for this reason that most studies have concentrated on the
need for autonomy and not that of competence. SDT also postulates that extrinsic motivation
lies on a continuum that varies in its relative autonomy. The third basic need outlined by
SDT, that of relatedness may not be necessary for intrinsic motivation to occur when an
activity is performed individually, although a secure relational base may be (Ryan & Deci,
2000).
Therefore of the needs outlined by the SDT, the need for autonomy is likely to play the most
significant role in enhancing intrinsic motivation. I therefore propose
H4: The need for autonomy will moderate the relation between flow and autonomous
motivation.
10
DESIGN AND METHOD
Research design
This study is undertaken according to a cross-sectional research design and was undertaken in
a cross-cultural academic context. Participants are undergraduate psychology students from
the University of Cape Town. Participants will be contacted via email requesting voluntary
participation. The variables flow, motivation and autonomy will be assessed electronically
using self report measures. These self report measures included the Flow State Scale, the
Academic Motivational Scale and a subscale of the Manifest Needs Questionnaire measuring
autonomy. The consent form accompanying the self report measures are presented in
Appendix A and B. Testing took place at a time and location convenient to the participant,
during the allotted 2 week period.
Participants
Undergraduate psychology students from the University of Cape Town in South Africa were
elicited as participants in this study. An invitation to participate in the study was sent out to
1570 students of four different courses offered at undergraduate level. The response rate was
17 % and course points were awarded for participation in the study. Of those that completed
the questionnaire and filled out demographic information, 46% were first years, 37 % were
second years and 17% were third years. There were also more women than men who
completed the survey which is characteristic of a population of psychology students (16 %
men, 84% women; M age = 20.23 years, SD = 2.40 years). Flow studies mainly use special
populations such as scientists, artists, athletes, creative populations, rock climbers, chess
players, basketball players and social dancers as study participants. This study explores the
flow experiences of a more representative academic population that does not embody special
characteristics often paired with the flow experience, such as creativity. Psychology
undergraduates although not a typically representative sample, are possibly more akin to
students studying mainstream scientific disciplines, than their artistic counterparts and are
potentially more representative of tertiary educational students in general. As autonomy is
one of the variables that will be explored in this study and an autonomous profile is more
likely due to development in a university population, undergraduates are a suitable population
(Guay, Ratelle and Chanal, 2008).
11
Measures
Flow State Scale
The Event Experience Scale (FSS-2) is a version of the Flow State Scale. This scale is a self
report measure which assesses flow experience concerning a particular event in the past,
postgraduate studies in this case. The FSS-2 measures Csikszentmihalyi’s nine component
states of the flow experience: challenge-skill balance; action-awareness merging; clear goals;
unambiguous feedback; total concentration on the task at hand; sense of control; loss of self
consciousness; transformation of time, and the autotelic experience. The scale was originally
developed for flow experience in the sports arena but has been successfully used in
educational research. The items will need to be reworded to reflect the academic experience.
This has been undertaken before in the study with architectural students and the test still
shows construct validity. Students will be required to think of activities which they undertook
in the course of their studies that they enjoyed or found significant and complete a 36 item
questionnaire on these experiences. Students will then indicate the frequency of these
thoughts and experiences by answering items such as, ‘I had a strong sense of what I wanted
to do,’ and, ‘My attention was focused entirely on what I was doing.’ A five point Likert
scale will be used for responses ranging from “1” (never) to “5” (always) (Jackson & Eklund,
2004; Mills & Fullagar, 2008).
The Academic Motivation Scale
‘Conclusions and recommendations: From this brief overview of SDT educational studies, we
can draqw three main conclusions. First, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be reliably
assessed with the AMS and SRQ_A, whereas amotivation is assessed solely by the AMS’
Guay, Ratelle and Chantal, 2008)
This scale is based on SDT which outlines both types and levels of motivation. It assesses
dispositional forms of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, including amotivation. Intrinsic
motivation is operationalized as knowledge, accomplishment and stimulation. Extrinsic
motivation is operationalized in the types: identified; introjected; and external. Amotivation
does not consist of levels as it is an absence of activity or drive to pursue a behaviour.
The Academic Motivational Scale (AMS) was developed for use with students and consists
of 28 response statements addressing the reasons why students go to university. Responses
are scored on a seven point Likert scale from very strongly agree to very strongly disagree.
Examples of items are, “For the pleasure I experience while surpassing myself in my
12
studies”, and “I don't know; I can't understand what I am doing in school” (Vallerand et al,
1992, 1993).
Manifest Needs Questionnaire
The proposed measurement tool for need for autonomy is a 5-item subscale of this scale
Items will be altered for suitability in the educational domain. An example of this is the item,
“I try to avoid any added responsibilities on my job or in my studies”, which will become, “I
try to avoid any added responsibilities in my studies.” These items are scored on a seven
point Likert scale indicating frequency of experience ranging from the response never to
always. In internal consistency was established in the study of Architectural students (Mills &
Fullagar, 2008; Steers & Braunstein, 1976).
Procedure
The survey including the three measures was posted on the University of Cape Town’s online
portal, VULA. An email was addressed to Psychology Postgraduate students for the
Department of Psychology at the University of Cape Town. This email outlined the value of
understanding flow experiences and encouraged students to participate. An informed consent
form was accepted electronically before participation in the survey. Participation was
voluntary and anonymous and emails were sent out twice over a two week period to
encourage participation. After this period the questionnaires were no longer available for
completion.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
This study is in line with the ethical guidelines as set forth by the Health Professions Council
of South Africa for research with human and ethical clearance was obtained from the
University of Cape Town (UCT) humanities department. Informed consent was given
electronically by participants before taking part in the study. Participant’s details and
responses were anonymous and confidential and their responses were used for research
purposes only. The study did not involve questions other than what would be encountered in
normal day to day life.
13
RESULTS
A preliminary inspection of the raw data revealed that it was possible to give more than one
response on a Likert scale item. Items that were related on the Likert scale were averaged,
such as, ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and ‘slightly agree.’ Data with divergent responses such
as, ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ were further screened for inconsistent responses.
Answers such as ‘strongly agree’ and ‘neither agree nor disagree’, to similar items were
deemed inconsistent responses. Similar items included items from the flow questionnaire,
concerning a course that the participant particularly enjoyed, such as, ‘I really enjoyed the
experience,’ and, ‘The experience left me feeling great’. Participants who met the criteria for
both inconsistent responses and giving divergent responses on a Likert scale item were
excluded. Fourteen cases met these criteria and they were excluded from the sample set
leaving 252 participants. As part of the analysis, using a standard predictor for outliers, 9
outliers were identified. Two extreme outliers with standard residual values of greater than -3
(Mahalanobis’s D = 6.0, 3.83; Cook’s Distance = 0.10, 0.03) were deleted from the dataset
respectively, leaving a sample size of 250 participants. The data was relatively linear. On
inspecting normality plots, amotivation (p=<.01), the external motivation items (p=<.01), and
the intrinsic motivation based on knowledge and on accomplishment (p=<.01) were not
normally distributed, but visual inspection did not reveal extreme cases that would case
problems in the analysis. The data was also screened for violations of the homoscedascity
assumption and the distributions of concern appear in Figure. 2. High intercorrelations can be
observed in Table. 1, but the tolerance level is high enough not to violate the assumption of
multicolinearity.
Multiple regression analyses was undertaken to examine the relationship between
motivation, flow and autonomy. H1 examines whether flow is more strongly associated with
the more self-determined forms of motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation to know, to
accomplish, to experience stimulation, and the most self-determined form of extrinsic
motivation). To examine whether the more self-determined types of motivation better explain
the variance in flow we computed zero-order correlations. On inspection of the zero-order
correlations, intrinsic motivation knowledge (r = .33), intrinsic motivation accomplishment (r
= .23), intrinsic motivation stimulation (r = .18), and the most self-determined from of
extrinsic motivation (identified) (r = .27), showed significantly positive correlations with
flow. Intrinsic motivation and the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation are
positively related to flow. The two least self-determined forms of motivation, extrinsic
motivation-introjected (r<.01) and extrinsic motivation by external regulation (r =- .15) show
14
low correlations in comparison. Thus the data seems to support H1, though further analysis
will be needed to examine the intricacies of the relationship between motivation and flow.
Scatterplot: Amotivation vs. Flow
Flow = 3.8167 - .1836 * AmotivationCorrelation: r = -.4159Exclude cases: 40,89
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Amotivation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Flow
95% confidence
Scatterplot: EM External Regulation vs. FlowFlow = 3.0481 + .07276 * EM External Regulation
Correlation: r = .15141Exclude cases: 40,89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EM External Regulation
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Flow
95% confidence
1. Amotivation 2. Extrinsic motivation – external regulation Scatterplot: EM Identif ied vs. Flow
Flow = 2.3046 + .19067 * EM Identif iedCorrelation: r = .30194Exclude cases: 40,89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EM Identif ied
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Flow
95% confidence
Scatterplot: IM Know ledge vs. FlowFlow = 2.3416 + .19397 * IM Know ledge
Correlation: r = .33253Exclude cases: 40,89
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
IM Know ledge
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Flow
95% confidence 3. Extrinsic motivation - identified 4. Intrinsic motivation - knowledge
FIGURE 2. Scatterplots for amotivation, extrinsic motivation – external regulation, extrinsic
motivation – identified and, intrinsic motivation – knowledge.
Evidence for H2 lies in the significantly strong negative correlation amotivation shows
in relation to flow (-.42). Thus H2 is supported.
H3 explores whether each facet of motivation lying on a self-determination continuum, as
postulated by SDT, incrementally adds to the variance explaining flow. We ran a hierarchical
regression analysis to test this hypothesis. The motivational types and amotivation where
15
16
entered into the equation in order, from the most self-determined type of motivation to the
least self determined type, concluding with amotivation. Flow was entered as the dependant
variable and results are presented in Table 2. As we proceeded with our hierarchical
regression model, we found that the most self-determined type of intrinsic motivation,
intrinsic motivation-knowledge (ΔR2 = .11, ΔF (1, 264) = 1.20, p < .01), added significantly
to the variance explained in flow. Although the least self-determined types of intrinsic
motivation had strong zero order correlations with flow, the variance they added to the
explanatory model was negligible and therefore they did not add significantly to the variance
explaining flow. This may be because of the high intercorrelation between the intrinsic
motivation items, which is as expected as they are measuring similar constructs (intrinsic
motivation-knowledge and intrinsic motivation-accomplishment (r = .57), intrinsic
motivation-knowledge and intrinsic motivation-stimulation (r = .61), and intrinsic
motivation-accomplishment and intrinsic motivation-stimulation (r = .52)). In fact once all
the variables are entered into the model, intrinsic motivation no longer explains significant
variance in the relationship between motivation and flow. To counteract the high
intercorrelations between the intrinsic motivation items we made a composite of the flow
scores and entered the intrinsic motivation composite, the extrinsic motivation scores, from
the most self-determined type to the least self-determined type and finally amotivation into a
hierarchical regression. The entire model accounted for 23% of the variance explained in
flow. Intrinsic motivation as a composite accounted for 8% of that variance, with the two
most self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation-identified (ΔR2= .4,
t (2, 247) = 1.20, p < .01 ), and extrinsic motivation introjected (ΔR2= .03, t (2, 247) = 2.54, p
< .01.). The least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, the externally regulated type,
di not contribute significantly to the model, although amotivation did explain significant
variance. Amotivation demonstrated a strong negative relationship with flow (ΔR2= .03, t (2,
247) = 2.54, p < .01.). In the overall model only, the intrinsic motivation composite, the
introjected type of extrinsic motivation and amotivation made significant contributions to the
variance explained in flow. The most and least self-determined types of extrinsic motivation
did not come up significant in the final model. This may also be due to high intercorrelations
between the extrinsic motivation items, such as extrinsic motivation- identified and extrinsic
motivation- external (R=54), and extrinsic motivation- external and extrinsic motivation-
introjected (R=54). The most self-determined type of extrinsic motivation which Vallerand et
al. (1992), describe as being very similar to the intrinsic motivational types did not come up
significant. This may be due to moderate intercorrelation between the intrinsic motivation
17
18
items and the extrinsic motivational type, identified. These intercorrelation values are:
Intrinsic motivation-knowledge (R=43); intrinsic motivation-accomplishment (R=43); and
intrinsic motivation-stimulation (R=43), respectively. Therefore H3 is partially supported in
that the intrinsic motivational composite did significantly explain variance in its relationship
with flow including the extrinsic and amotivation independent variables in the model. The
extrinsic motivation items did not add incrementally to the variance explained according to
the self-determination continuum, while amotivation significantly explained variance in the
relationship. As part of the hierarchical regression after partialling out the effect of the
intrinsic motivation composite, we found that extrinsic motivation-introjected and
amotivation significantly explained the relationship. Looking at the significance tests as a
whole, the zero order correlation, the first hierarchical regression and the intercorrelations
between variables, it appears as if each motivational item does explain variance in the
relationship with flow. The most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation has a slightly
stronger relationship with flow when compared to the less self-determined types of intrinsic
motivation and the least self-determined types of extrinsic motivations have very weak
relationships with flow. The hierarchical regression may be affected by intercorrelations
between the motivation items and therefore does not mirror the effect displayed by the zero
order correlations. Overall the strongest effect, taking both hierarchical regressions into
account to be results from instrinsic motivation items on flow, intrinsic motivation-
knowledge in particular. It is also noteworthy that in the zero-order correlations as well as in
the hierarchical regression where each intrinsic motivation item was entered separately that
extrinsic motivation-identified displayed a strong relationship with the flow experience.
Amotivation displayed the most consistent strong negative relationship with flow.
Finally we look at the need for autonomy as a possible moderator in the relationship
between motivation and flow at low, medium and high levels. As with the analysis for H1,
H2 and H3, the moderating effect of autonomy was investigated in much the same way as in
the architectural study to provide an accurate replication of the study. The facet
measurements of intrinsic motivation were computed into one score and centered along with
the data for the need for autonomy. In line with the recommendations in Aiken and West
(1991) to reduce problems of multicollinearity, as presented in Mills and Fullagar (2008),
three regression lines were computed. The mean was subtracted from each score respectively,
and the standard deviation was added to obtain a regression line depicting a high value and
19
Table 3. Moderated Multiple Regression Results With Need for Autonomy as the Moderator (N=250)
Variable B SE β ΔR2
Step 1 .30** .Intrinsic motivation .17 .03 .30**
Step 2 .02* Intrinsic motivation Need for autonomy
Step 3 Intrinsic motivation .12 .04 .22 Need for autonomy .75 .42 .56** Intrinsic motivation x need for autonomy -.10 .08 -.40
Note. *p<.05. **p<.01.
Moderation effects of the need for autonomy on the relation between intrinsic motivation and flow
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low IM High IM
Intrinsic Motivation
Flow
Low Autonomy Med Autonomy High Autonomy
FIGURE 3. Interaction effects of need for autonomy on the relation between intrinsic
motivation flow.
20
subtracted to obtain regression line illustrating a low level of motivation and autonomy.
Overall the relationship between flow and intrinsic motivation was not dependent on the
perceived need for autonomy. While the moderating relationship was not significant (see
Table. 3.), visual inspection of the graph in Figure 3. illustrates a similar relation as reported
in the Mills and Fullagar (2008), study for low and medium levels of autonomy. Inspection of
the graph shows that, although not significant, the relationship between intrinsic motivation
and flow was stronger for a medium need for autonomy than for a low need for autonomy.
Unexpectedly, a high need for autonomy did not appear to affect the relationship between
motivation and flow, therefore H4 was not supported.
DISCUSSION
This study examines the relation between motivation and flow in the educational context. A
review of over 200 educational studies cited the self-determination continuum as proposed by
Ryan, Deci (2000) and Vallerand et al. (1992), as the most suitable way to study motivation
in the educational context. Therefore as a starting point, we explored whether flow is more
strongly associated with the more self-determined forms of motivation. These are sometimes
studied as a composite known as autonomous motivation (Guay, Ratelle, & Chanal, 2008).
Autonomous motivation includes intrinsic motivation to know (where the process of learning
is enjoyable in itself), intrinsic motivation to accomplish (where the sense of accomplishment
is the motivational factor) and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation (where the
sensory excitement the activity induces is the motivational factor). Autonomous motivation
also includes the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation-
identified, where an external value is internalised and has motivating potential. On the other
hand, controlled motivation is a composite of the least self-determined types of extrinsic
motivation. Psychology students who were autonomously motivated experienced more flow
than those that exhibited controlled motivation, thus H1 was supported.
We then looked at whether psychology students who were amotivated had flow
experiences. Psychology students who lacked intent and drive (amotivated) were least likely
to experience flow in their academic studies, thus our second hypothesis was supported. The
outcome of both hypotheses are in line with previous research (Mills & Fullager, 2008).
To explore the relationship between motivation and flow in more depth, we looked at
all the motivational types in terms of the self-determination continuum. We investigated
whether each facet of motivation incrementally explained the flow experience. This
hypothesis also goes towards ascertaining the incremental validity of the academic
motivational scale in this context. Testing for incremental validity goes one step further in
21
establishing the suitability of the instrument than just testing for convergent and discriminant
validity (Hunsley & Meyer, 2003). Initially, the most self-determined type of motivation,
where the process of learning is a source of satisfaction and the most self-determined type of
extrinsic motivation, where an external value is internalised where found to significantly
explain flow according to the self-determination continuum. The introjected type of extrinsic
motivation and amotivation followed suit, but these individuals experienced flow rarely in
comparison to the autonomous forms of motivation. Intrinsic motivation for the satisfaction
that the activity brings and intrinsic motivation based on sensory stimulation did not explain
flow in our sample until we included them with intrinsic motivation for the love of the
process of learning as a composite. Although they did contribute to explaining the flow
experience, their contribution was negligible. The Mills and Fullagar study (2008), contrasts
this in their finding that intrinsic motivation for the satisfaction that the activity culminates in
did result in flow experiences. Varying results in the different analysis point to the fact that
motivational facets may overlap, or that the relationship between them may be more complex
than current research suggests. Individuals who are intrinsically motivated for the love of
learning, congruent with previous research, experience flow most often in their academic
studies.
Extrinsic motivation due to outside values that have been internalised also has been
shown to result in flow experiences in both our research and previous research (Kowal &
Fortier, 2000; Mills & Fullagar, 2008). In the study with swimmers they measured extrinsic
motivation as one construct and not in varying levels as with this study. It may be surprising
that extrinsic motivation is linked to the flow experience, which is known to be intrinsically
motivating, but Vallerand et al. (1992), have pointed out that extrinsic motivation, where a
value is internalised, is barely distinguishable from intrinsic motivation. An activity can also
be engaged in originally for extrinsic reasons, but can then be experienced as intrinsically
rewarding. For instance in a study on leisure states in older individuals, leisure activities
chosen for extrinsic reasons were more intrinsically motivating, had a challenge-skill balance
more indicative of the flow experience and made the individual feel that they were
performing at a higher level than leisure states engaged in purely for intrinsic reasons
(Mannell, Zuzanek & Larson, 1988).
Overall H3 was partially supported in that psychology students who were motivated
by the process of learning or who had internalized values experienced flow most often in the
course of their studies. In both the architecture study and this one intrinsic motivation due to
sensory pleasure was not consistently linked to students experiencing flow. This type of
22
intrinsic motivation does not seem to play an important part in the educational domain as
educational pursuits are unlikely to elicit sensory pleasure. In our study, contrasting with the
results found in the architecture study, intrinsic motivation for the satisfaction experienced
after the activity did not explain flow experience when compared with the strong relationship
that intrinsic motivation for the love of learning had with flow. It is doubtful that psychology
students do not experience satisfaction in their studies. It is more probable that this
motivational type is very similar to intrinsic motivation-knowledge and therefore does not
account for flow experiences over and above what the love for the process of learning does.
In contrast, students who studied out of guilt or obligation, because of parents expectations or
for a reward, had negligible flow experiences as these reasons contrast with intrinsic
motivation that is so strongly linked with flow experiences.
When looking at whether levels of autonomy play a role in the relationship between
motivation and flow, contrary to expectations, we found that it did not. Although we used a
different population to the architecture students in the Mills and Fullagar (2008) study, the
similarity of our results pitched this contrary to expectation. According to SDT and the
results of the architecture study the effect that motivation had on flow experiences was
expected to depend on how autonomous the student perceived themselves to be. Interestingly
in leisure studies, freely chosen leisure activities, in which the individual would perceive
themselves to be acting highly autonomously, were not linked substantially with either
instrinsic motivation or the flow experience. This may be due to factors operating in our
sample which may not have been at play in the sample of architecture students. One
possibility is that participation based on a reward will result in being motivated for extrinsic
reasons. Psychology students often do work that will ultimately be marked and reflect their
competence. Evaluation may undermine their intrinsic reasons for being motivated, but not
necessarily hamper the flow experience if the student shares the same values as the institution
or the lecturer of their course. Autonomy may also operate in a more complex way than just
operating at three levels. For instance in the leisure study, activities that were freely chosen,
but extrinsically motivated, were most indicative of high flow experiences as they required
effort, commitment and obligation. These conditions seem ripe for the optimal challenge-skill
balance that drives the flow experience. Although levels of autonomy did not significantly
predict flow experiences, the relationship between intrinsic motivation and flow seemed
stronger for a medium need for autonomy than for a low need for autonomy. In Kowal and
Fortier’s, (2000) study on motivation and flow in swimmers, they found that when the
competitive nature of the sport was emphasised, participant’s perception of autonomy was
23
undermined. Psychology faculties take on large numbers of students in the undergraduate
years and very few in subsequent postgraduate studies. This may create a competitive
atmosphere amongst students, thus undermining their perceived autonomy and differing in
levels of perceived autonomy from the group of architecture students. This finding is
congruent with previous findings where perceived autonomy did not predict motivation at a
contextual level. (Kowal & Fortier, 2000; Mannell, Zuzanek & Larson, 1988; Stein,
Kimiecik, Daniels & Jackson, 1995)
The Mills and Fullagar study (2008), explored the relationship between motivation and
flow in architecture students as they are a creative population that work long hours.
Architecture studies have a high potential to be engaging and motivating, and therefore have
high flow potential. This is typical of many flow studies where special populations such as
scientists, artists, athletes, creative populations, rock climbers, chess players, basketball
players and social dancers are likely study participants. This study explores the flow
experiences of a more representative academic population that does not embody special
characteristics often paired with the flow experience, such as creativity. Psychology
undergraduates although not a typically representative sample, are possibly more akin to
students studying mainstream scientific disciplines, than their artistic counterparts and are
potentially more representative of tertiary educational students in general. Our findings are
remarkably similar to the results obtained in the study on architectural student’s flow
experiences. This is a significant finding in itself since although Czikszentmihalyi (1999),
states that a vast array of activities have flow potential, researchers expect flow to be more
likely in special populations. This study illustrates that psychology students and perhaps
others in the educational domain can experience flow as part of their work or studies.
LIMITATIONS
Due to the small sample size and specificity of participants, results my not be generalizable to
other academic contexts. However, in comparison to studies measuring the constructs of
motivation and flow, this sample is the most generalizable to academic contexts. The sample
was also predominantly female, which may have created biased results. Self report
questionnaires are also susceptible to bias although data was scanned for inconsistent results.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Autonomy, competence and relatedness, the psychological antecedents of the flow experience
may show more pronounced relationships with the flow experience, if measured as state
24
traits. Flow itself is a situation-specific experience and therefore dispositional measures of
flow antecedents as used in this study and the architecture study may not be the most apt
ways to measure these contructs (Stein, Kimiecik, Daniels & Jackson, 1995). More research
needs to be done on motivation and flow in the educational context, especially in populations
more representative of universities and schools. Currently flow research uses the experience
sampling method where participant are interrupted during an activity by means of a beeper.
This is an ingenious way to measure a situation specific construct and bypasses the limited
recall that participants may have of past experiences.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
The motivational types outlined in this study such as the various forms of intrinsic motivation
and the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation are associated with optimal
functioning. States of enjoyment, satisfaction, concentration and control are indicative of the
flow experience unlike boredom, apathy and anxiety. The less self-determined forms of
motivation are associated with negative functioning What is also encouraging is that the most
self-determined type of extrinsic motivation is highly correlated with the flow experience.
This means that positive outcomes are also linked to internalized values that were not
previously associated with the self. Lecturers and professors can therefore successfully
motivate students and mentor them by sharing and inculcating values into students. These
students although not originally intrinsically motivated can still have optimal academic
experiences that are linked to successful school completion and many other positive
educational outcomes. (Stein, Kimiecik, Daniels & Jackson, 1995; Guay, Ratelle and Chanal,
2008).
25
REFERENCES
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist,
54, 821–827.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(6), 627-668.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A mactotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job characteristics, flow, and performance: The moderating role of
conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 266–280.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040–1048.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review
of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Fairchild, A. J., Horst, S. J., Finney, S. J., & Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and
new validity evidence for the Academic Motivation Scale. Contempory Educational
Psychology, 30, 331-358.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school
performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20,
257–274.
Guay, F., & Ratelle, C. F. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-
determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49, 233-240.
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, J. M. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and
assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological
Assessment, 15(4), 446-455.
26
Jackson, S. A., Eklund, R. C. (2004). The Flow Scales Manual. Publishers Graphics Fitness
Information Technology, Inc.
Jackson, S. A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite
athletes. Research Quartely for Exercise and Sport, 67, 76-90.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from
self-determination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 355–368.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (2000). Testing relationships from the hierarchical model of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation using flow as a motivational consequence. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 171-182.
Lee, E. (2005). The Relationship of Motivation and Flow Experience to Academic
Procrastination in University Students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 5-14.
Mannell, R, C., Zuzanek, J., & Larson, R. (1988). Leisure states and ‘flow’ experiences:
Testing perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation hypothesis. Journal of Leisure
Research, 20(4), 289-304.
Mills, M. J., & Fullagar, C. J. (2008). Motivation and Flow: Toward an understanding of the
dynamics of the relation in architecture students. The Journal of Psychology, 5, 533-
553.
Moneta, G. B. (2004). The flow model of intrinsic motivation in Chinese: Cultural and
personal moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 181-217.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The construction of meaning through vital
engagement. In C. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing (pp. 83-104). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association Books.
27
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Seligman, M. E. P., Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An Introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihaly, M., Schneider, B., Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Instructor
facework as a facilitator of Classroom Identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 18,
158-176.
Sobel, Dava & Omni. (1995). Mihaly Csikszentmihaly. General Media International, Inc, 17,
4.
Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a
college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 1, 5-27.
Steers, R. M., Braunstein. (1976). A behaviourally based measure of manifest needs in work
settings. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 9, 251-266.
Stein, G. L., Kimiecik, J. C., Daniels, J., Jackson, S. A. (1995). Psychological antecedents of
flow in recreational sport. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(2), 125-135.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C. B., Vallieres, E. F.
(1992-1993). Academic Motivational Scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurements, vols. 52 and 53.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-determination
theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, 257-262.
28
Appendix A
Email, sent out to students asking for their participation:
Dear Student, How do we achieve the optimal academic experience? Why do some lose all track of time
and self-consciousness while doing their studies and others don't? You can gain one SRPP point and contribute towards research on the optimal academic experience by filling out a 30 minute questionnaire at https://vula.uct.ac.za/direct/eval-assigngroup/729. Questions are about your experience at university and answers are anonymous. Your participation will go towards research on factors determining academic success.
There are no written answers required and your input would be greatly appreciated. Please complete this by 2026/10/09 12:00:00 AM at the latest. To fill in the evaluation, go to: https://vula.uct.ac.za/direct/eval-assigngroup/729 or: 1. Login to Vula at https://vula.uct.ac.za/portal 2. Click on the site tab for PSY1001W, 2009 3. Click on "Course Evaluation" 4. Click on "PSY1001W, 2009" link under "Optimal Experience in Academic Work
Questionnaire"
If you have any problems completing the evaluation, please email [email protected].
If you would like to know more about the study or have queries regarding your SRPP points please contact me at [email protected].
Regards,
Zara Vorwerk
Psychology Honours Student
29
Appendix B
Introduction to online study:
A few minutes of your time will further our understanding of how motivation and optimal experience in academic studies are linked. Your answers could help us to understand why when some become involved in their studies they loss track of time and do it purely for enjoyment and others do not. Whatever your experience it would greatly contribute to finding out how studying can be a more enjoyable experience.
Your participation would be greatly appreciated and can help to outline the factors that contribute towards academic success.
What happens in the study?
While participating:
You will be asked about your experience during academic work. There will be no written answers, just click the box that best matches your experience. The process should take no longer than 30 minutes. Your responses are anonymous and confidential. I have read and understand the above details outlining the purposes of the study. I understand that my participation is entirely voluntary and that I am free to leave at any time. I understand that I do not have to answer anything which makes me feel uncomfortable.
If you decide to participate in this study and have read the above and understood it, then please select, ‘I accept.’
30
PLAGIARISM DECLARATION
1. I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend that it is my own.
2. I have used the APA referencing guide for citation and referencing. Each contribution to, and quotation in this essay/report/project/………………… from the work(s) of other people has been contributed, and has been cited and referenced.
3. This essay/report/project/ ………………… is my own work. 4. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work.
Signature: Date: 29 October 2009